NYT lies in editorial about Trump's lies

Did we get the NYT retraction on Sarah Palin after the Gabby Gifford's& Scott Scalise shootings? This story illustrates fake news reporting and NYT lies to affect GOP presidential candidate prospects having been going on long before Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:58, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Tapes

Personally, I don't see were discussion of tapes is news at all until it proven they either exist or were destroyed. Trump never said they existed, and speculation on whether they exist or not is speculation, not news. Hence, literally by definition fake news. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:13, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I agree, Rob. The classic definition of fake news is "clickbait." For example, "Hollywood is shocked by the loss of [actor]" which people click on to read about [actor]'s death. The actual linked website has nothing to do with [actor] who is still alive. Here, Trump implied there were tapes, and taxpayer dollars were wasted because the White House refuse to admit or deny there were tapes, when asked by Congress and the press. It was a made up story that earned a lot of clicks with "Is Trump as bad as Nixon?" or "Trump's outside counsel will not say if there are tapes." At least with "confefe", Trump took the tweet down after 6 hours, not 6 weeks. I am glad that Conservapedia never accepted the "Trump has been recording White House meetings" theory. JDano (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

The MSM never accepted the existence of tapes, and it does not seem like Trump every said they existed either. You may not like what Trump did, but that does not justify you adding it here as "fake news." Content yourself with adding it White House tapes, as you already did. You are overeager to add content attacking Trump, whether it means adding the opinions of RINOs (Graham and McCain), or adding the tapes speculation as "fake news." --1990'sguy (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

1990'sguy is right--it's not "fake news" outright. He never said there were or were not tapes. It could be just a jab at Comey, which he later decided was too unprofessional and retracted. I don't know why he said or retracted it, nor do I know if there are recordings. That's doesn't make it fake news, or clickbait. Other may make fake news out of it, for the purpose of being clickbait. For example, "Trump admits to making secret recordings or private meetings!" That would server both purposes. Why did he say it? I don't know for sure, but his post was not fake news--it was just the basis of others' fake news, which is not his fault. --David B(TALK) 23:36, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, it doesn't matter what the MSM does or does not publish--Trump supports were the subjects, not perpetrators, of numerous incidents of violence. They may be sweeping this under the carpet, but it is our job not to let them succeed completely. Even if they did hire people to pretend to be Trump supporters and cause violence, the truth still exists. Some of it may be too deeply buried to prove, but we need to make an effort.--David B(TALK) 00:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Kathleen Parker has the best take on it yet. Trump baited Comey into leaking. She's says not only was he fired, he's now exposed as the treachous double-dealing liar and subversive that he is with a reputation in the dumpster. Her article is an object lesson now for anyone in Washington wanting to cross Trump. They are not dealing with a politician who's always looking for cover - they're dealing with a businessman who looks toward bottomline results and won't accept failure. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:53, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I concede the point. I never thought that the "James Comey better hope there aren't tapes" tweet was fake news; I just wanted to be sure it didn't get totally censored. If it's in a more appropriate place at Conservapedia, that's fine. Publicly threatening a federal official (or, in this case, a former official) is despicable, reprehensible, and totally beneath expected standards for Presidential behavior, but it isn't "fake news". SamHB (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I agree with DavidB4, the tweet itself was not fake news, but during the six weeks while the White House and Trump's outside lawyers refused to clarify whether the tapes existed or not, there was a lot of fake news generated, based on the assumption that there were tapes. JDano (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I don't think the media ever accepted the existence of tapes. Them reporting the tapes as fact (like they did on Russian collusion) is debatable as fake news, but I don't recall them ever accepting them as fact. This example is clearly NOT an example of fake news. Also, DavidB4 supported my position of keeping the tape info out of the article. It is enough to add them to the White House tapes article, as you already did. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

This whole episode was the birth movement in miniature; one sentence intended to mislead uttered by Obama in 1992 set off decades of speculation. One sentence uttered by Trump intended to be deceptive set off weeks of speculation. In the larger scheme of things both will be forgotten. Keeping it alive by debating who to place the onus on - the president or a gullible public - yields more confusion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:59, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Another usage

Before the common usage in the 2016 election cycle, the term "fake news" had been used to describe satirical news media with intentional falsehoods inserted for humorous value rather than malicious deceit (The Onion, The Daily Show, UnNews, etc.) Should this usage of the term be incorporated in the article in some fashion? --Anglican (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Yes. Things like The Onion, The Daily Show, etc., should be listed as pre-2016-election examples of fake news. Basically, they constitute the early transition from supermarket tabloids printed on paper to internet news, before the recent deluge. I'm probably going to work on that. SamHB (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Castro death

To make fake news understandable to high school age readers, we need clear factual examples. The timing of the death of Castro is not a good example, because of the factual evidence supporting the time of his death. It is possible that there is a grand conspiracy theory about the timing of his death: anti-Castro people spread rumors that he was dead earlier, but there is no evidence of the media misreporting the hard facts. I am deleting this because there are no sources discussing it as "fake news."

We need to help high school students learn how to think critically about how information is presented to them, particularly on social media and Wikipedia. Thanks, JDano (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

So, because of one small issue (Castro, which Andy added and supports keeping -- talk with him), you changed all this? This is ridiculous. Your edits have a clear left-wing bias and change the definition of fake news to exclude and/or be more favorable to the MSM. Your changes are opposed by every single other editor. Why do you continue to change it? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, and besides, need I remind everyone that, if we are to go by news outlets, it was conservatives who killed JFK and not the USSR/Cuba? Or how about how journalistic ethics mandate getting the story even if it means selling your fellow Americans down the river for a few minutes of ambush footage for the news as Mike Wallace tastelessly implied in that Ethics in America segment a while back? If we start trying to use your suggestions, we'll be liberalized like Wikipedia, which we cannot afford. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Pokeria1 is correct. JDano, accepting your changes would make CP a politically-correct Wikipedia-lite website. These changes, as seen in the diff I linked just above, do just that. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Suspending edit conflict

Karajou already protected it, but my protection right only allows me to protect articles so only autoconfirmed editors can edit. Since only editors with an account can edit CP in the first place, there is not much use in my right. Thank you for your support. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

"Every single other editor disagrees with you. Even SamHB changed his position."

I only agreed that the tweet itself did not constitute fake news. This is because the tweet ("James Comey better hope there aren't tapes") did not make an assertion. He didn't say that the tapes exist, and he didn't say that they don't. So its truth or falsehood couldn't be evaluated, and it can't come under the topic of "fake news". It is simply a public threat against a government official. President Trump and the White House staff are well known for their public excoriation and calumny against other government officials, as in the "some judge on an island in the Pacific" statement. And he wonders why so many people hate him. Perhaps a page on despicable, reprehensible, and inexcusably unpresidential behavior of President Trump is what is needed, though I won't be holding my breath.

About John McCain: The fact that he said something that you disagree with doesn't really give you good cause to censor his statements or call him a RINO. If anything that any Conservapedia editor disagrees with got censored, what kind of web site would this place be? And dismissing anyone you disagree with as a RINO (or XINO or PLINO, etc.) is really stupid. It might interest you to know that the RINO page once listed nearly the entire Republican Senate delegation: [[1]]. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. (The XINO page doesn't present Conservapedia in a very good light either.) SamHB (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I can agree with everything about the tweet except it being a public threat against a government official. It was a threat against a criminal leaker who formerly occupied the chief position in the largest and formerly most respected law enforcement agency of the federal government.

As to MCCain, he and Pelosi are both soon headed for greener pastures, that's the consensus internally of both parties. Out of respect for the decades they've given in service to their respective parties, we should ignore everything they say and do in this the period of obvious decline of their mental capacities. The problem the Democrats have however, is a limited bench of substitute talent and leadership. We just need to remain patient momentarily, and not make the embarrassment for either any worse than what it is. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

@SamHB:I stand corrected about what you meant. However, you did concede, as your comment above makes clear. Every other editor agrees with me that the WH tapes info is not appropriate here. It has been added to White House tapes, so deleting it here is not censorship.

Every other editor also agreed with me that McCain's opinion should not be added here. I actually opposed adding his opinion mainly because is was giving undue weight to one opinion.[2] The fact that McCain is a RINO (liberal people and RINOs like to mention people like McCain and Graham to "prove" that there is "conservative" opposition to conservatives like Trump, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. If you want a better explanation of why I oppose adding comments like this, see this diff, where I explain why Linsay Graham's opinion was not necessary for an article. Either add sources that give wide analyses of people's opinions ("Some conservatives/liberals/etc think..."), or add multiple specific opinions from people with different views. Otherwise, keep it out.

I don't think I'm the only one who believes McCain to be a RINO. Trump is probably the first GOP presidential nominee since Reagan to actually be conservative (based on what he did in office and on his positions relative to the other candidates -- Jeb Bush, Kasich, Rubio, or some other establishment favorite were expected to win). Here is more proof McCain is a RINO: [3] His "Nay" vote was unexpected (the others were) and he single-handedly defeated a measure to repeal an Obama energy regulation. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Let's stop putting words into each other's mouths. The fundamental problem with the "fake news" article is that we do not agree on the definition of "fake news." I believe that it involves a deliberate attempt to misinform (although some innocent people are tricked into spreading it in good faith on social media.) When a newspaper has a typographical error (printing 1907 instead of 1997 or misspelling someones name), that is not fake news. The top of the article should remove that. Second, although there have been false political rumors and "National Enquirer" stories about UFOs for a long time, that is not a part of the "fake news" phenominon. We are just confusing the reader by adding the discussion of the National Enquirer. Here are some examples, can we agree on whether or not they are "fake news":

Example #1: When Chester A. Arthur was nominated for vice president in 1880, a political opponent, Arthur P. Hinman, initially speculated that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old and was ineligible to run. When Hinman's original story did not take root, he spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim, too, failed to gain credence.

Example #2: There are rumors that Abraham Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks, was born out of wedlock.

Example #3: In 1791, Jefferson and Madison moved to Philadelphia and founded the National Gazette in an effort to counter Hamilton's Federalist policies, which Hamilton was promoting through the influential Federalist newspaper the Gazette of the United States.

Example #4: Four Trump golf courses displayed framed copies of a Time Magazine cover with Donald Trump's picture on the cover. However, it is a fake cover and Trump's photo was not on that issue.[4][5]JDano (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

We've already had long discussions about the definition of fake news (see Talk:Fake News, which was the former talk page before the article was moved), and every other editor, once again, disagrees with you. Why do you continue to make changes even after it's clear nobody disagrees with you and thinks your edits are misguided at least and damaging at most? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear 1990sguy, if you read the message from User:SamHB, it is clear that there is still disagreement. What is your view on the four examples that I listed above? Please give us your considered views, as these matters are not just a matter of "black and white". Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

SamHB conceded to me and the others that the info about the Comey tapes should not be added here. And if it is not clear, Andy also agrees with me on these disputes. And what does the above have to do with this article? Can you prove to me that the MSM accepted rumors of Comey tapes as fact? In this case, they only reported that rumors existed. The BuzzFeed dossier, the retracted CNN article, and the two articles Comey revealed as false during the hearing are clearly different from that and fake news. The MSM believed them to be true, but used sloppy reporting motivated, at least in part, due to bias. As I stated on the other article talk page, the view of fake news that I am advocating is more broad than yours. It encompasses your version as well as other types of false news. You, however, apparently, want to adopt a narrow version of fake news, the version that is friendly to the MSM.[6][7] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Page structure

Personally, there is much more to this topic then what is currently on display. I don't particularly like the liberal view or the conservative view sections. Modern or historical is somewhat worthy but there really has never been an era in which people were not calling out falsehoods e.g. The earth was flat, The Sun was the center of the universe. I will be contributing more to this page on the basis of fake news is fraudulent, used to drive agendas. Fake news attempts to manipulate the public, dupe them in order to advance a cause. Hands up don't shoot and the many instances from CNN (very fake news), Gulf of Tonkin, Goebbels work, State media, science and Global Warming, homosexuality among the animal species and those powerful people that decide what is news and what isn't. A long, long list of topics to explore and highlight. This should lead to the elimination of some sub sections. Feel free to weigh in. --Jpatt 14:05, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

I like what you are proposing to do, based on what you stated. I am OK with removing the liberal/conservative view sections, but as long as you keep the info in those sections and move them to other relevant sections. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Trump oval office speech

Here's the doctored loop aired in Washington State from Trump's speech. This should be a heads up for two reasons: (1) the technology now makes it possible to question and destroy the credibility of all video evidence, including in live broadcasts; (2) this initial cyberwarfare attack was against the most popular conservative news source. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:04, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Intro

The Intro is still confusing. It doesn't clearly delineate beteeen mainstream fake news and clickbait. Rearranging a few paragraphs could be helpful. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:29, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Any comments? I like the flow of the first six paragraphs; the remaining three contain some redundant information that needs to integrated into the Intro, the rest of the article, rewritten, or eliminated. Comments? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:36, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Either way, the intro is too long -- it should be shortened. I think the material which shouldn't be in the intro should be moved to the article body -- none of it should be deleted outright unless it is duplicate material. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Proposal:Reputable sources

We should have a list of vetted sources, since readers come to this page to help identify fake news. I propose the following list:

Epoch Times

Daily Caller

Washington Free Beacon

New American

Breitbart

The list of recommended sources should be placed toward the end of the article.

This sounds good to me, though I would recommend adding a short explanation on the criteria used for such a list. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

The above sources appear solid, except I'm not sure about the Daily Caller, which may be unable to criticize the Fox News Channel as appropriate.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

This idea and list sounds good, although we might want to differentiate or outright avoid publications which are focused on correcting/rebutting other news reporting. A list of this sort seems like it should be news reporting, not news correcting. I would classify HumanEvents, and maybe NewsMax and even Breitbart as the latter. That's not to say that those are bad services, or that there is not a place for them. However, we are essentially saying "instead of reading these fake news sources, read these other news sources." It seems that our listed alternatives should be primary news sources, not secondary. --DavidB4(TALK) 23:48, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

I don't know about the other two sources, but Breitbart does do news reporting, rather than just correcting. For example, they've broken several important news stories about Big Tech bias this year alone, and in the past few years they've broken several stories documenting deep state bias, such as the State Department. Breitbart is more than just arguing against MSM bias.

Also, I think Andy is right to question the Daily Caller -- it's increasingly liberal on immigration. For example, it published this op-ed that argues against the administration's planned deportations (of illegals already ordered to be deported), and a few months ago, I saw an article criticizing a HUD proposal to combat illegal migrants illegally using government housing. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

1990sguy, Well, there is a difference between editorial oversight or allowing divergent views and opinions, and deliberate false, misleading information.

I support including Human Events and the Daily Signal for sure, though I'm not opposed to the other two. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, Fox corporate seems iffy at best. Local Fox TV stations are sometimes a little better, but that doesn't seem to justify them being called reliable. NewsMax was formerly good, but it seems they've gone down hill as well. --DavidB4(TALK) 00:29, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

Poll:Infowars

Yes

No

IMO, CP should await the outcome of several litigation cases and possible restoration (even if it takes legislation to do so) of Infowars to platforms it has been booted from. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:19, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Probably too ambitious to add Infowars to the list. Also, Alex Jones is more of a libertarian than a consistent conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Fake news category

We should probably begin a fake new category. I've got zillions of imgs that could be put in. Also, if it's done, we should be careful about adding the category to pages of victims of fake news, and concentrate on putting fake news manufacturers and stories into it.

Great suggestion. I'm not sure what the best answer is and I defer to others more familiar with optimal categorization.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

Perhaps put it under Category:Media? We do not have a news category, but our newspaper category is directly under "Media." We could instead put it under Category:Liberal Media, but is worth noting that while most popular fake news is manufactured for political gain (by the left), some is produced simply to make money (like all most of the rubbish found at your local grocery store's checkout line). If we put the "fake news" category under "liberal media," we risk blurring the line between CNN and some backwater site's clickbait. --DavidB4(TALK) 22:53, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

Okay, I've created it directly under Category:Liberal Media. We'll just need to be careful not to put clickbait-type stuff in there too. --DavidB4(TALK) 00:40, 13 August 2019 (EDT)

A suggestion

The fake news is coming more rapidly, coupled with Search engine rigging and Big Tech bias, it's almost impossible to keep up with. This page could be used as a rebuttal page, with more current topics near the top. The ==History== section could be spun off into a History of fake news article, where ==Examples of fake news== are eventually culled. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:33, 1 October 2019 (EDT)